Should postdocs be included in study sections or panels?

ProfLikeSubstance asks this question The Spandrel Shop. He qualifies the question with the following statement later in the comments section.

"If grouped with more senior people, could a postdoc’s perspective be valuable on a panel?"

Let me hang my answer as a sign on the door before you read any further. Yes. A big fat yes. And it's not just about the postdoc's perspective but more about the long term benefit to the academic community

I want to preface my discussion by saying, I have now known 3 postdocs who have either been on a panel, study section, or provided ad hoc reviews for NSF. All three of these postdocs had received grants from NSF as grad students. One of these postdocs was recommended by her former PhD supervisor and apparently, did a stellar job. But because there are 3 people per grant or other senior faculty she was not alone in the evaluation. Nor did she pretend to know everything about certain topic areas.

Let's get to the meat of the issue. At PLS, commenters seem have one main reason for rejecting postdocs on panel. Here are some comments:

"They not qualified to sit in judgment on something they have no *fundamental* understanding of."

"They lack the experience of being independent PI’s to assess some of the finer points (e.g. what can be pulled off with a certain amount of money, a bigger picture of where the field in the broader sense is going etc). But, I would take a technically strong postdoc in my field to review my proposal any day over a crusty PI outside my area. "

"It would be an exceptional postdoc indeed who understood, really understood, what being a PI and running an independent research program is all about."

These commentators are suggesting that postdocs lack of experience both in terms of the science and in terms of running a research program - this includes both a sense of the bigger picture of the scientific question asked as well as practical aspects.

In terms of the science and bigger picture questions, I cannot disagree more. As NatC points out, why in the heck would we be asked to review manuscripts for scientific journals if, as trainees we aren't capable of evaluating science. That said, I agree that some postdocs may not be capable of practical aspects of running a research program, but frankly I can think of few t-t profs and even those tenured who don't understand the practical aspects of running a lab. I only have to look at theoreticians who think that after 15 years of a successful modeling career, that they can just like that start a wet lab. Usually, what happens is that they hire a postdoc. That postdoc turns out to be the one with a practical sense of how to run a wet lab.

So maybe it's not so much about where you are in the academic hierarchy but the individual's qualifications. I certainly agree that a first year postdoc may not have the depth of a senior faculty but I think that it starts to get fuzzy when comparing senior postdocs and t-t profs. And as editors have to select reviewers presumably they pick the most qualified. I think that its pretty easy to determine someone's qualifications: either through references, recommendations, publications, etc. And presumably, those sitting on the panel have been assessed as to their qualification to sit on said panel.

Here's another reason. On and off throughout the bloggosphere, I hear tenured and tt faculty complain about how little time they have and how overworked they feel. And I don't doubt it. There has been much discussion about how reviewer fatigue contributes to poor reviews and that the refereeing burden is not evenly distributed across the scientific community. See here for a discussion. I think some of the burden can be alleviated by giving qualified postdocs (because what other ones would you choose?) a chance to share in the load.

Now I know one commentator suggested that it will cost us postdocs the time and intellectual energy that should best be spent writing manuscripts. Here's what's missing from that comment. My job as a postdoc is to make myself look darned attractive to a university. How can I do that? By making it look like I'm a good horse to bet on.

Consider that a university doesn't want to have to hire someone -- only to find out that they don't qualify for tenure because they weren't able to get external funding. Postdocs on a panel or study section benefit everyone in academia. Why? Because the postdoc on that panel will learn in a very real way how to discriminate between a fabulous-and-funded grant and an-almost-but-not-quite. (My guess is that the toilet paper is pretty obvious at first reading.)

This means that when a postdoc gets a shot to apply for a t-t position, their application will be just that much better. Why? Perhaps the school that hires them will feel like they are hiring a stronger competitor, one that understands what it takes to get external funding. This will save that school from having to do another job search to find someone else to fill the position when the now junior faculty isn't able to secure external funding.

Addendum:
Okay CPP, while I understand that the search committee doesn't give a flying fucke about service because it's all about PUBLICATIONS. I do think serving on grant panels will benefit the postdoc-soon-to-be-ttprof in writing better grants. By better, I mean grants that have a higher success rate. And doesn't a higher success rate at getting external funding mean a better tenure package?

The other benefit is to the other faculty in the department. Although a junior colleague, this postdoc now has experience and may be a helpful editor in reviewing grants that a colleague might want to submit.

And while I don't want to do all that freaking work because I'm busy enough thank you as it is, any leg up on my competitor, is a welcome thing.